Friday, February 16, 2007

Condemned to Repetition

The Group of 88’s Monday event—ostensibly designed to confront “the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues, and following the events of last spring, this forum addresses connections between faculty interests and local, national, and international politics”—seems to have fared no better in improving the Group’s reputation than did the “clarifying” letter.

Instead, the event only confirmed the aphorism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Flyers for the event contained “McCarthy” with a line struck through the word. The invocation of McCarthyism generated a thoughtful letter to the editor from Economics professor Roy Weintraub, who had more than his share of personal experience with the issue:

In the late 1940s, my father, an economist, was attacked in newspaper editorials in The Brooklyn Eagle for teaching communism to nice Catholic boys at St. John’sUniversity. He was, of course, an early Keynesian. In the late 1940s, the man who would become my doctoral adviser had to leave the United States for almost a decade to avoid the agitated involvement of the Regents of the University of Michigan in his tenure case, based on his admitted connection with the Communist Party as a graduate student and young instructor. In those years with the Smith Act in place, one could be jailed for being a Communist Party member. That he was doing the work for which he would later win the Nobel Prize mattered not at all to the Regents.

And my college classmate was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s older son.

So I read with astonishment the recent panelists’ invocation of McCarthyism as their characterization of the criticism they have received for their public statements or writings. They face no death sentence, no jail time, no threats from Trustees or administrators of employment termination, no loss of income, no loss of custody of their children, no loss of their passports, no reduction whatsoever in their public or private circumstances.

I don’t ask the panelists to shut up and teach. I ask them instead to understand that for various Duke faculty, staff, administrators, students, parents and alumni to disagree with them in public or in private is neither McCarthyism nor an academic travesty and betrayal of the values of our institution, but is rather an expression of their believing otherwise.

Shorn of its inflammatory rhetoric, the Group members’ position appears to be:

(1) Their critics should “shut up and teach”—as, indeed, one presenter, Charles Piot, stated outright at the conclusion of his Monday remarks.

(2) It is McCarthyism to criticize faculty members at one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions for issuing a statement so extraordinary that it was cited in a defense motion for change of venue, even though they have given inconsistent and even demonstrably incorrect explanations regarding the statement’s origins.

---------

Monday’s event seemed unable to remember the past in another way. Though billed a “teach-in,” it restricted the exchange of ideas.

In their purest form, 1960s teach-ins consisted of faculty attempting to transmit their knowledge about Southeast Asia to students and even a public that had little understanding about the area. Participants in 1960s teach-ins wanted to make sure as many people as possible had access to their ideas, and weren’t afraid of defending their positions in the face of skeptical questions.

The Monday “teach-in,” on the other hand, went out of its way to prevent dissemination of the speakers’ ideas. At least two bloggers attended with video recorders, with intent to post a tape of the event on the web—so people could hear the Group members in their own words. Given that Group members have consistently claimed that their writings have been “misread,” they should have welcomed this move. Instead, they banned all recording devices from the event.

At the very least, participants in a “teach-in” should have been willing to defend their viewpoints. Indeed, one participant, Group of 88 member Mark Anthony (“thugniggaintellectual”) Neal, asserted, “We live in the world of ideas, in the marketplace of ideas.”

The participants did not practice what Neal preached. Instead, they seemed outright afraid of getting tough questions—perhaps on the basis of the open (and thus far unanswered) questions from Friends of Duke. The session opened with an announcement that journalists and bloggers would be forbidden to ask questions. In other words, the goal would be to preach to the converted, not to persuade the undecided.

---------

So what did occur at the session? John in Carolina, Locomotive Breath from the Liestoppers forum, and a blogger from Duke New Sense attended the session and took careful notes. Their reports make clear why the Group members worked so hard to prevent dissemination of their words from outside the confines of the “teach-in” room.

Looking forward to the day when “we’ll all get along together after the revolution’s over,” lead speaker Wahneema Lubiano promised to run to the barricades, to save her job at least, if the university adopted policies she opposed. Lubiano was fresh off the revelation in the Chronicle of Higher Education that eight of the anonymous student “quotes” from the Group of 88’s ad actually came not from a transcript but second-hand, from her notes. In effect, 87 other Duke professors signed a public statement declaring that they were “listening to Lubiano.”

Lubiano appears to have received only one tough question—from a Duke junior, who asked how the “listening” ad was formulated, how signatories found out about it, and why there was no response from the sciences. Her response? Reported LB, the African-American Studies program “wanted to produce ad and had to do it quickly. Circulated it to people on their lists. Sent to some departments and not to others. Gave them a 48 hour deadline!!” As LB notes, “If the ad wasn’t about lax, why the rush, except to capitalize on the moment?”

Recall the timeline: based on Lubiano’s remarks, it appears to Group wanted the ad out before the DNA reports came in, lest a report of no matches lead to—as Group member Thavolia Glymph would lament—things “moving backwards” on campus.

Then, according to LB’s notes, Charles Piot made an extraordinary claim: the Group of 88 is now, effectively, the Group of 89, because President Brodhead had signed on to the ad in a recent Chronicle interview. This assertion, to put it mildly, seems an overstatement of what Brodhead actually said.

Other speakers devoted themselves to less worldly matters. Pedro Lasch handed out a set of questions entitled, “game scenario: knowledge/power/violence vs. knowledge/power/social justice.” Diane Nelson passed around to participants a string, which a student then cut, to symbolize disconnectedness. As one commenter at Liestoppers noted, this activity seemed more appropriate for elementary school playtime than a serious academic presentation.

---------

As occurred in Lubiano’s and Piot’s assertions about the Group of 88, the presenters consistently strayed from the claim that the forum wasn’t about the lacrosse case. Amidst his game scenario, Lasch departed from the script to assert that “women live in an environment of constant sexual violence.” Robyn Weigman, Director of Women’s Studies, added, “It’s not a crime to assume alleged victim of sexual violence is telling the truth.” No, it’s not. But it is a rush to judgment, especially when 88 professors take out an advertisement based on this assumption.

Piot, meanwhile, devoted his presentation to . . . criticizing this blog—which, he hastened to add, was not read by even one of 100 students he had sampled. A good portion of Piot’s remarks came almost verbatim from an e-mail distributed by Orin Starn, to which I had previously responded by e-mail (a copy is here).

Piot’s assertion that the blog employs tactics comparable to those of unnamed dictators in West Africa was more than mildly amusing. His refusal to respond to straightforward questions from John in Carolina is unsurprising. His claim that the “blog produces vile racism” might have been more persuasive had he provided a quote from even one of the blog’s 403 posts. His complaint that the blog “had the temerity to question one of the Duke faculty on IRB approval for a study” might have made more sense to the undoubtedly perplexed audience had he mentioned that the issue involved a course taught by his partner, Group of 88 member Anne Allison.

Piot explained that he and members of the Group of 88 are not anti-athlete, and that “hundreds of athletes enrolled” in AAAS courses (since the program has only 33 majors, this claim seems remarkable). Nonetheless, if true, it seems to me Piot should eagerly sign the Economics Department professors’ public petition, which stated, “We welcome all members of the lacrosse team, and all student athletes, as we do all our students as fellow members of the Duke community, to the classes we teach and the activities we sponsor.”

Piot added a final charge: the blog, he fumed, had engaged in “publicizing syllabi” of Duke professors. At most academic institutions, syllabi are not considered top-secret documents: indeed, all of my syllabi, along with my lecture notes, are available on-line.

I fear that Piot based his belief that faculty should be free from public scrutiny on another overlooked aspect of the past. It seems that he has forgotten the famous saying of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

218 comments:

Good job, K.C. It seems that these professional victims are going to wallow in their victimhood. Yet, they were at the forefront of a movement that was trying to throw three innocent young men into prison for 50 years. So, who were the real victims, and who were the victimizers?

Another excellent piece KC. Indeed the G88 has not had enough sunshine. They are so buried in their agenda and sheltered from reality they can not see the embarassment they have brought to Duke and themselves.

Another Liestoppers froum note (and the forums at Liestoppers should be mandatory for people wishing to discuss all aspects of the case) is that while outside participants were not allowed to videotape the event, the presenters had their own videotape made (through a service of Duke University, I believe). They have refused to issue copies of the tape to requests.

Thanks for the correction. Now if the Raleigh News & Observer would learn to do corrections that fast.

I said it in my post at Liestoppers and I'll repeat it here.

Duke Technical Services made a professional video. Each panelist had a microphone wired directly into the sound system and there was a roving wireless microphone for questions so the sound should be quite good.

In addition there was a AAAS student making a recording with a simple video recorder.

In addition, the Chronicle reporter had a handheld audio cassette recorder and there was a still photographer from the Chronicle. This was in contradiction to the stated requirement that the media would not be allowed to take photos or make recordings.------------------(OT)Dave-

Locomotive Breath is a joke on the fact that I'm an engineer. When engineers introduce ourselves as such there's always the wise guy that comes back with "where's your train". Finally, it's a litmus test of the age of the person to whom I'm posting. Anyone who comes back with a halitosis joke is probably to young to be worth talking to. I was a freshman in 1975 so Dave's older than I am. :)

I think LB reported that independent VIDEO recordings were banned. A couple of people, including a Chronicle reporter, were permitted to try recording it with hand held recorders. Also, a technical crew did video the forum for its sponsors, but the video so far is not being made available to the public. A "Brandy" over at Liestoppers called the AAAS department to ask, and I think she was denied a copy.

Piot's reported diatribe must have been kind of funny. First he starts off by saying no one reads DIW and then spends all his alloted time trying to trash it? Why bother if no one reads it? My guess is that the forum speakers had received so much email from people citing to DIW that they felt someone should attack it.

KC, I have always thought the inclusion of the Listening Statement in the venue motion was not important or even a convincing argument for change of venue. Maybe I've forgotten, but I don't have the impression that the ad had that much circulation off campus in Durham.

Having worked for years with labor unions during wage and salary negotiations, the string used in the meeting with the G88 is an old OLD device to bring people together on one side of the table when they are arguing among themselves.

Usually you drape the string around several people to show the need for and the power of unity and solidarity.

People stopped using the string in labor negotiations during the 1960's when a Teamster threatened to use it to tie a fellow union 'brother' to the ceiling light fixture.

The string trick is still used in labor negotiations today... by the brave ...for union folks who ...can't read.

I would not have used the fact that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's son was in his class as an example of how not "McCarthyist" he is. After all, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were clearly Soviet spies, as the Venona transcripts prove. Their guilt, and the guilt of hundreds of other Soviet spies, was not because of McCarthyism. In fact, while McCarthy certainly abused his power, he was more often than not correct. One thing about leftists is that they hate being exposed by having their words or actions come to light. In that respect, the Group of 88 can take comfort in knowing that they are quite similar to most of McCarthy's targets; they are guilty.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016703.php-------------Regarding the string thing. I guess having students read someone else's work while the prof fiddles with string and a knife saved her from having to come up with an original presentation of her own. After all, 12 minutes is a long time.

If she'd cut off someone's digit the Chronicle headline the next day would have been: "Student Gives Prof the Finger in Tragic Cutlery Mishap". OK - it's late and I've devolved into silliness. Time for bed.

Well done, Johnson; we're finally focusing on the core issue: academic fraud--those that enable, and those that benefit.

Because of the outrageousness of the lacrosse scandal, Duke will go down in history as Ground Zero as the locus of the downfall of Preposterous Studies.

Yes, there will have to be a "Bell Curve" moment or two during this impending battle. More damaging to the G88's agenda, however, is the creation of a manifesto that drives home the point that other areas need more money, and that AAAS, et al are, at best, parasitic, vile, and obsolete.

That song sends me back to late nights at the dorm where I would play that very intro on the piano and wish I had a better late-night option. Fortunately, the wish came true not long after that, but that will always be my association with that song.

I think these 88/87/89 (with Broadhead) are really ashamed of themseleves, wished they'd never signed the Listening ad, and are to ego driven to admit it to themselves or anyone else. They also don't appear very bright. Arguement can be made that women on college campuses are at risk, discriminated against etc. But these fools don't know how to structure an arguement. Where are their studies and facts? Surely even they know that anecdotal information is not a solid foundation for an arguement; especially second hand anecdotes.I don't pay them much attention. They are sometimes good for a little laugh, but generally they just turn me off. They have limited power except over their students. However, at least Curtis exercised her power over the LAX players in her classes. They must be so frustrated. The day will come when they will hold an event and only they will show up like Victoria Peterson's last news conference. I'll enjoy reading about that. I suggest they just shut up.

It occurs to me that if a slander lawsuit were filed regarding things said in the "Shut Up and Teach" meeting, the videotape could be subpoenaed as evidence. Once entered into the public record, its copyright status could not be used to prevent its legitimate dissemination (news use, academic use, etc). The case wouldn't have to be very strong or even winnable, just arguable.

I agree about the Rosenberg kid. I would not have mentioned him in that letter. The Rosenbergs certainly were not victims of McCarthism.

The kid of course did nothing, but his parent were justly put to death for being among the worst mass murderers in history. Had they not given Stalin atomic secrets, the Korean war most likely would not have been started and 500,000 Americans, Koreans, Chinese, etc. soldiers would not have been killed. [50,000+ Americans if you are of the view the US government should only be punishing civilians for what they do in the US to Americans.] But some old line American leftist have it so ingrained in them that the Rosenbergs were victims, they just ignor the Verona data.

This is comedy. The G88's approach to learning appears to be little more than a series of Pavlovian responses to a specific academic stimuli. If these drooling characters even knew what the hell they were talking about, we might be able to approach a valuable dialogue. This should be a case study in the psychology department, not a separate course of study. This is not a legitimate approach to furthering knowledge. It is a patronizing fishcake thrown to some noisemakers under the auspices of social engineering. It gives incompetents an unearned place at an intellectual table that these pretenders barely understand, let alone can communicate meaningfully upon. I suppose that this is the academic equivalent of the 'race-hustling poverty pimp'.

Serena Sebring does some potbanging on Durham Responds in relation to the alleged rape last week:

FYI ~V A Duke student has reported being raped at an off-campus party last week.� Details are still emerging and crimestoppers has requested information ~V please call 683-1200, if you think you have information that may be helpful.

This is not rocket science. The "majority" culture is fed up with the culture of entitlement.

The blacks want the elite sinecures not only because they believe they are owed them, but because they live in the same country. Therefore, the concept of "citizen" has also been bastardized. Best thing to do is tell the truth.

And the truth is that blacks, on average, are cognitive lightweights.

Please don't call me a racist, I just might cry.

Right now the US is topsy-turvy.

The solution:

TURVY-TOPSY

Polanski

Here's a question: Ever wonder why Cornel West is so affable and jovial?

Answer: If he were to act otherwise, he'd be subject to real criticism.

Ever wonder why black "geniuses" are only "geniuses" for 15 minutes?

Spike Lee; Cornel West; Henry Gates; Toni Morrison--now they're jokes

Anton Chekhov has withstood the test of time: the above-referenced will not.

For god's sakes, what exactly does a professor have to DO before he's fired from Duke? Those jerks urge castration of students and they're still here? They deliberately flunk students and they're still here. They're racist, sexist, bigots who can't even spell! They jump one of their own grad students in New York, then publish an outrageous piece of libel - all of which has now placed Duke's financial neck on the chopping block for what promises to be the costliest lawsuit in its history.

And the Gang of 88 responds to all this by ----- playing with a bunch of STRING?

Quite a spectacle, these frauds gnashing their teeth at "the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues"?

Listening statement signatories dare mention "attempts at intimidation"? They have the gall to pretend they did nothing more than a "comment on larger... issues"?

If they truly believe this, something's wrong: perhaps they are too thugniggaintellectual to understand simple points.

"Thank you for not waiting" is thank you for rushing. "What happened to that woman" is something terrible happened to that woman. Publishing that ad at that time was not a comment on larger social issues, it was a prejudgment of this case.

I think Weintraub's reference of the Rosenberg son is to point out the true pain that bringing up McCarthyism can generate. Whether or not the parents were guilty, they were put to death as part of the McCarthy movement, and that would be a trying time for any son, and for friends of that son. They wouldn't know of Verona at the time, only a 20 year old's parents being executed. Weintraub's issue is with the cavalier use of McCarthyism, I think.

As for the ridiculous "you are not a Duke professor, KC" - two things. First, being a Duke professor is not what it was prior to this event; the faculty at Duke has been besmirched by these 88 hooligans. Second, KC graduated from Harvard and has been a visiting professor there. If he is pining for a place to go, I would guess it's Harvard, not Duke.

But why let facts get in the way? Since you don't like his message, attack the messenger. Brilliant!

12:46 In answer to your question" where are the trustees" Bobby Steel is right there, HERE, every step of the way, he and Johnny Mack have been pulling puppet BRODHEAD's strings from the first note. That "note" was released mid afternoon after the GEORGETOWN contest was cancelled. Trask ,Waslesk, Moneta and Alleva assured the parents of the lacrosse team members NO COMMUNICATION WILL BE RELEASED WITHOUT CHECKING WITH YOU FIRST. Brodhead is a teacher, without Steel and Mack he can't blow his nose. The" Trustees" THEY ARE IT.

If anyone is interested Professor Weintraub's advisor was Lawrence Klein.

Weintraub is modest. Klein was a giant and a Nobel Prize winner in economics. I've read him. Tweaked, and ran one of his 40-year old models in a MBA class. I remember thinking that it was really high tech while recognizing it was done even before the IBM 360 mainframe era..But he was a Commie. I blame both the Commies like Klein and those in the FBI at the time who were too lazy to want to investigate Commies in Gov't and academia to see if members had a change of heart - they just wanted to blacklist based on past affiliation vs. do the scutwork to determine ex-Commie's actual values at the time.

PCA (full ID unspellable) I would not have used the fact that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's son was in his class as an example of how not "McCarthyist" he is.

You have no idea how perverse the sense of humor of some economics people is! I can see the guy just baiting, hoping a Lefty will break ranks and say "Gotcha! You don't know all you think you know Weintraub if you don't know the kids parents were guilty!" (I actually talked to one of the Meeropol brothers once. As Lefty as his parents were.)

***********************I read Locomotive Breath's account over at Liestoppers. Congrats to him, his stamina, and taking good notes.A word to David Horowitz, who from LB's notes apparantly gives the Duke Profs of the Group of 88 inclination even more heartburn than KC Johnson.PS- Your "string theory" vignette was hysterical! *****************Duke09Parent - KC, I have always thought the inclusion of the Listening Statement in the venue motion was not important or even a convincing argument for change of venue. Maybe I've forgotten, but I don't have the impression that the ad had that much circulation off campus in Durham.

Lady Duke By Proxy...The University is Durham's largest employer, with some 35,000 people in the city directly doing something with Duke for income, or a dependent. That is a significant part of the Jury Pool, and the lawyers venue motion mentioned that as well as the "signal" that Duke Faculty and Administration sent the remainder of the Durham community by their words and actions that they condemned the Lacrosse players and believed "something happened".

Adding the Duke U "community" to the hostile elements possibly preventing a fair trial was a masterful move. It was not only accurate, but set up the Court to lay fault in a formal legal venue on Duke and it's employees. It likely popped the eyeballs of not only Duke lawyers, but lawyers at other Universities pondering the impact of tossing students and coaches to the wolves for expediency's sake in a criminal investigation.As you read this, Duke lawyers are still praying, hoping with fingers crossed that the criminal court does not giftwrap a tort for hungry lawsuit esquires and the change of venue motion is mooted by other events.

Alas no mention of the Duke hoax. When are the media going to ask Edwards about this injustice? Better yet what he is waiting for on this injustice? Oh, nevermind, it's the voter race/feminist thingy. Ones suppose the makes him a racist/bigot by not acting...

Earl, binding the Stanley Marcus name to marxists lacks a sense of balance. Neiman-Marcus is one of the best Capitalist success stories in U.S. history. Stanley Marcus was a retail giant.

The fact that they are known for high quality goods, and excellent service run 180 degress from the dumbing down of our educations system, the fraudulent academic work of the Gang of 88, the lack of leadership of the Duke administration, and the true marxist drivel coming from the Gang of 88, the pot bangers, and those that abet them.

Stanley Marcus and Neiman-Marcus deserve better that to be tied to this lot.

"...Every Duke student..." And what are the ramification if one chooses to volunteer to do work of their own choosing? Is someone going to put their family in a re-education camp? Seriously, volunteerism is about choice, and this appears to be moving toward mandatory participation.

"...Duke has a long legacy of civic engagement as well as an evolving understanding that the best education we can provide for our students includes one that connects them to the outside world..." - From AAAs and Womens Studies, "best education", I think not.

"The latest strategic plan, Making a Difference, puts still greater emphasis on “the learning that arises when theoretical intelligence is tested in the arena of real human needs.” - Who is driving the bus? Why the Gang of 88.

You know Bill and Melinda Gates can put their money anywhere they choose, and having grant money to execute on volunteer missions is what separates the U.S. from all other countries.

What does this have to do with a college education. We have Boy Scouts, churches, the United Way, and 1,000's of other group that need money and volunteers.

To "encourage" service is complete bull shit, one must find the drive to serve/volunteer internally and through projects of ones own choosing. Further, each of these student, I'm certain have a long and remarkable history of service on their resumes before they get to Duke, or else their application wouldn't get noticed.

I really enjoyed the reference to the Neiman-Marxists and wondered if Earl coined the phrase. And I did not see it as a slight to Mr. Neiman, but a funny play on who the well paid, "privileged" Group of 88 actually are. Not that they shop at Neiman's, of course, but that they are some of the greatest beneficiaries-- educationally, financially, etc.-- of this capitalist society about which they complain so bitterly.

KC - one minor correction but since the panel seems to pick up and holler about all inaccuracies:

"Diane Nelson passed around to participants a string, which a student then cut..."

A participant (a student, I'm assuming) passed around the string which Ms. Nelson then cut with a rather large knife. I, too, feared for the fingers of the student who formed the center of the web of string.

7:02 Observer, not real disagreement with you comment. My point is that Earl's use becomes another form of erosion that is dumbing down our society. Why bring down the great, even with humor, by binding them to the lowest common denominator? It would be easier to tie them to the frauds/hypocrites in Hollywood, for example.

After hearing ad infinitum from the Feminazis about how women and "people of color" are victims of the white male totalitarian society, I hark back to the lyrics I hear over and over again from "people of color" rappers: women are all ho's (I believe that's Ghettoese for whore); women are all bitches; women are sexual instruments; and even more scatalogical garbage. I'd like to hear one, JUST ONE, of these concerned feminists make a strong statement decrying the degradation of women by so-called entertainers. Instead of "Shut up and teach" I say to G88 "Shut up and shut up!"

Don't be so literal. (1) Read "Neiman-Marxist" as a worse version of "Limousine Liberal". (2) The Rosenberg's guilt is irrelevant to Professor Weintraub's point. He's establishing that he is not some knee-jerk, rghtwing ideologue.

KC - one minor correction but since the panel seems to pick up and holler about all inaccuracies:

"Diane Nelson passed around to participants a string, which a student then cut..."

A participant (a student, I'm assuming) passed around the string which Ms. Nelson then cut with a rather large knife. I, too, feared for the fingers of the student who formed the center of the web of string.

Let me see if I can be more precise. DN stood at the front of the room, but to the right (geographically speaking, of course), and was putting up overheads on a projector while students strategically placed in the audience read writings from various authors relating to Guatemala. I would say that perhaps 6 students read. DN generally put up one overhead per reading. Since she was standing between the screen and the audience I could not read the overheads. In between overheads/speakers DN offered a little bit of commentary.

The string exercise took place during the readings and involved two more students. One stood front and center with her hands out in front of her. The second student took a ball of string and gave then end to the first student. Then the second student went to one of the audience members, unrolling the ball of string as she went, and looped the string over the audience member's finger. Then the second student went back to the first student and looped the string over her finger. And then back to a second audience member, and so forth. This went on during the entire reading. By the time it was done there were numerous loops of string radiating out from the first student to many of audience members in the first and second rows in kind of a semicircle. DN was still off to one side.

Finally, near the end, DN pulled out a big knife and began slashing through the string by working her way around the semicircle between the audience and the first student. She avoided cutting anyone but unless DN has the eye-hand coordination of Abby Waner it seems to me that this performance should not be repeated.

That's a lot of wasted electrons to describe a rather silly exercise which apparently had little to do with the evening's theme of faculty being intimidated unless she's somehow claiming kinship with the Guatemalans who were killed for their views. She can get back to me after the first faculty murder. Perhaps she's sufficiently paranoid to think that the right-wing brown shirts will be coming for her.

Others have pointed out the irony of DN being one of the leaders organizing disruption of David Horowitz's presentation when he spoke on campus.

(Abby Waner, a much better role model for my daughter: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22763&SPID=1846&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=157277&Q_SEASON=2006)

That they can even claim the title of "Dr." is laughable, but it is a serious matter because they do claim it and some people respect their "intellect" by assuming that these "doctors" have something important to say.

The use of the word "McCarthyism" by Group 88 members to characterize critics of their vigilante rhetoric stems from the same root as GW Bush's characterization in 2003-2005 of Iraq war opponents as "UnAmerican." The pinnacle of hypocrisy is to use exactly the same tactics employed by someone that you openly deplore. In this case, smearing opponents with a dirty word to hide your own despicable performance seems perfectly justifiable if creating critical silence is all that matters. You'd think, however, that Duke faculty members would have a bit more subtlety.

It is discouraging, and infuriating, to learn that the Group of 88 had to move "quickly" with production of its Listening Ad. And why...?

Primarily to stampede Brodhead into taking some dramatic action, such as firing that good and honorable man, Mike Pressler.

"Listening to Lubiano" was absolutely Brodhead's failure of leadership.

Shame on the Group of 88 for leading the rush to judgment. And shame on Brodhead for his failure of leadership. And, finally, shame on the Duke Trustees for standing by silently while this debacle was allowed to unfold.

I read a number of the comments in response to Marcotte's Salon article. A solid majority call her a whiner, many of whom are so-called liberals and many are women. She will not take responsibility for her her own demise and she's being taken to task for it.

KC's posts are measured, unemotional and carefully written. But, what this post and the Group of 88 teach-in now demonstrate is that this debate between academics has become nothing more than much to do about nothing. Academia is a hyper political environment where unknown teachers "debate" extra-academic issues that nobody listens to and nobody cares about. And, when I use the word debate, I'm being charitable. Most of these discussions amount to two or more groups of biased idealogues talking past each other.

In contrast to legitimate intellectual debates between scholars on the subject of their expertise, many of these so called debates simply regress into an exchange of political rhetoric about academic freedom (always a chimera at best) that is not much different than the blather from callers on talk radio shows.

I think KC is doing his best to address the Group of 88 but at this point, I don't think anyone cares about his response on the views of the group of 88.

For sure, the criminal case draws our attention to issues pertaining to relationships between different races and sex, but I don't think most folks care what a historian and scholars of African American studies think about these questions. And, frankly, I don't think either camp is especially well qualified to speak on these topics.

I've enjoyed ready KC from the start but the posts have gone so far afield as to become outright boring. Sorry KC, just the way I see it.

These academics don't fare very well when drawn out of their sheltered environment into the real world.

The reality is that it is their kind, at Duke and elswhere, who are the neo-McCarthyites. They're always trying to get someone fired. They will use any racial incident - real or imagined - or any utterance that deviates from the acceptable academic racial/gender orthodoxy to demand that somebody be fired.

Larry Summers and Mike Pressler lost their jobs. The tenured twerps are sheltered and have no worries, but they are still the ones who cry victimization incessantly.

"Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign" is a whiny, account of a world completely beyond Ms. Marcotte's comprehension. It is a long-winded gripe with the implication that under her special notion of democracy, she is entitled to a strange "right." It is the right to attack and demonize people with whom she disagrees using vitriol and foul language; yet when her opponents respond in kind she sees herself as a helpless victim of some quasi criminal act by those same people (mostly males, she says, intent on destroying the career of a young woman.) Essentially she giveth but can't taketh. She laments that she has been pushed out of the Edwards campaign by her foes, never recognizing that it was her irresponsibility, thoughtlessness, and foul mouth that cost her the job. Intelligence is not one of her strengths. She makes the point that her opponent has succeeded in forcing her resignation but worries that " that resigning would tell the right-wing mob that harassing young feminists works." She couldn't conceive of people like me who wish she was still with Edwards, acting like a beacon drawing attention to his hypocrisy.

Re: The article this morning in the Duke Chronicle written by the Princeton student.

Employers should read this beautifully written article as they try and figure out why new employees who are recent graduates of Tier # 1 universities are so terribly unhappy.

Social change doesn't happen as fast or as easily or as big as they imagined.

Self appointed postmodern elite among the faculty at a few of these schools are teaching young people to be unhappy and angry.

Who knew these people worked for universities ...as teachers?

All of us who employ recent graduates thought these people were authors, politicians and social 'think tank' employees.

Should we expect Duke and other Tier # 1 universities to provide us with resources so we can help their graduates get over the teachings of these people and learn how to make recommendations rather than just identify problems?

These debates do matter because the Far Left influences society far beyond their numbers and certainly beyond what is appropriate given their intellectual capacity.

As a parent of two kids in public schools, I see the handiwork of the postmodern doo-dah pseudo-scientists in not only the material that is taught, but also in ideas about how children should be taught. Children are not being prepared for a global economy where they will compete with Chinese and Indian children who ARE being educated. No doubt,our kids will enter adulthood with great self-esteem. We can only hope that it remains intact when they learn that employers are not too interested in the groovy stuff they learned in dumbed down curricula.

If you look into a school district in your area (Cherry Creek, I believe) you might have heard about flyers that were circulated and that describe white people in cartoonish fashion and express disdain for values of individual responsibility and initiative. Such values are deemed too Western and hurtful to people of other cultures. But then again, it is news to me that lack of personal responsibility and initiative is the hallmark of ANY culture.

The postmodernist cancer that has wrecked public K-12 education also wreaks havoc on media, government, religion, and other institutions.

This debate is important, essential even. It probably can't be left to academia alone because, while I have faith that there are plenty of academics who can think critically, many are too cowardly to step up. It is better to subject the rantings of the 88 and their peers to the crucible of public scrutiny anyway. The more the general public sees of this, the better, because we are all living it.

What a joke that they would talk about the "Marketplace of Ideas." Marxists don't believe in markets of any sort. It's just part of their well-established ploy: pour scorn on all aspects of (genuine) liberalism under normal circumstances, but then, when trouble appears, protect themselves with the cloak of liberalism.

Dismantling race preferences (who invented the term "affirmative action" ?) is hopefully one result of this hoax. I would bet that most of the AA professors are low-IQ incompetent people who got admitted because of the color of their skin, not because of their talent. (of course, skin color is not the only requirement, certain kind of extreme political views are also required).

Michigan was the most recent example that it is possible to get rid of black privileges. (Unlike so called white privileges, these are real race based privileges).

While whites suffer from black privileges, asians suffer even more (as they happen to be the best performing ethnic group and therefore would be overpresented in academia).

Greg, in this case internal faculty "debate" impacted the lives of students in a very direct and public way. Ask the accused students and other lacrosse players if they feel the Group of 88 rhetroic is "much ado about nothing." Openly vilifying students in the environment where they must live and associate is about as relevant and impactful as rhetoric can get.

A few days ago, another poster and I opined that the quotes in the Listening ad were probably made up. Now Lubiano says they were paraphrased from her "notes." You seem willing to take her at her word.

I suspect this is another cover story for the truth: the quotes were in fact fabricated.

RE: affirmative action "who coined this term anyway"...i think it was hubert h humprey who was a key player in civil rights legislation in the 60's. it was originally intended to ensure that everyone had an equal shot at the STARTING LINE however, it was quickly perverted to ensure results at the FINISH LINE. is pretty sure ol hubert has rolled over in his grave a time or two at the mess thats been created

Usually, the pronouncements of ideologues like thugniggaintellectual seem like no big deal: you think we'd be much better off ignoring them. That would be a true pleasure, except that theories like tni's have sustained a material, ongoing threat to the freedom of three innocent young men.

Anyway, cockroaches in your house are mostly no big deal, but they're disgusting, and it's satisfying to crush the ones you notice.

While it is now clear that the Rosenbergs were traitors (at least in the case of Julius), their trial was tainted by a lot of prosecutorial overreach and political hysteria. This might not be a very good forum to say that one shouldn't care about the fairness of a trial if the outcome is desirable.

Interesting piece about a new book on the "unhooked" nature of the college "hookup" culture.

The only thing I agreed with in Amanda Marcotte's piece was her assessment of the importance of blogs in the news cycle. She was pretty much on point there.

Prof. Weintraub could hardly write his letter without disclosing the identity of his college roomate, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the fellow's parents.

Bye, Greg. You may be bored, but I remain very intrigued by the culture that spawned this Duke LAX non-rape fiasco, and I am delighted that the GRUMPS are responding to criticism, even if they don't want to participate in the public "marketplace" of ideas. (Thank you LB sooo much for attending and reporting). Even in full disgrace, Marxist thinking has charmed many an intellectual--how can we not be interested in why and how this thinking seems to corrupt fact gathering and critical analysis, even in the world's most "intelligent" people? (I ordered my book, "Political Pilgrims" for $7.99, by the way. Thanks for the tip on halfprice.com).

Also, BA has a new piece on Lew Rockwell about the crimes that actually took place in Durham over the past year in LE and CJ. It is time someone down there in Durham started exploring this subject--well beyond Mr. Nifong's transgressions.

WSJ had article in the Personal Journal yesterday called, "Yale on $0 a Day." It's about the trend of allowing open access via Internet to great teachers (lectures and notes). That should enhance our public marketplace of ideas, and remove lots of barriers to becoming educated--a lifelong endeavor as we all know.

KC wrote:"[Piot’s] claim that the “blog produces vile racism” might have been more persuasive had he provided a quote from even one of the blog’s 403 posts."

Please indicate your response to the vile racism contained in the comments by Polanski at 1:52 AM, and 2:28AM, as well as comment by Jamil Hussein at 11:29AM

12:35 PM

Sorry, dumbass, but your deflection doesn't fly. Every Blogger knows that KC refers to his own comments on his Blog, not racist (or truthful, but un-PC)people popping in to his peanut gallery. Group of 88 defenders like you, and 88rs themselves have looked at KC's own posts. Searching for ammo. Not finding any.

It does drive you guys nuts. He has absolutely lambasted various parties and Even Dared to Criticize Strong Black Women - but done so only on the facts.

It reaffirms to me that white and black racists generally lack the education to be able to articulate grievances - so they resort to racism. Of course there is hypersensitivity where any criticism of Jews is called anti-Semitic, and criticism of black culture as racist.

Fortunately, we see articulate men and women like KC, Barack Obama, Mrs Evans setting an example for all of us to aspire to.

(Just kidding on Obama being articulate. Hypersensitivity says it is racist to say Obama is articulate...I prefer saying Obama is erudite...The stripper on the other hand was able to articulate 15 different stories...a commendable life skill for a natural liar)

I always get a kick out the folks who say "goodbye" on net forums. It used to happen frequently at another forum I visit, but the gleeful mockery directed at such self-importance seems to have dampened down the practice in recent years.

KC has worked diligently and quite brilliantly to present relevant material on a daily basis. At fallow periods, like this one, while we're waiting for Cooper to make his move, some of the stuff has been a bit off point. For example, I registered some unhappiness about the whole Marcotte connection myself.

But the proper response to material that fails to catch your interest is simply to pass it by until something more interesting comes along. Taking a cheap shot in public at the architect of an effective and useful blog, just because he hasn't entertained you lately, is highly declasse, and ungrateful to boot.

Barack Hussein Obama - an articulate leader for the United States now. Let me just say that since Clinton and his cigars left the oval office we truly don't need another smoker in there. And his victim-ology spouting wife needs to gain some dignity, somewhere.

Please indicate your response to the vile racism contained in the comments by Polanski at 1:52 AM, and 2:28AM, as well as comment by Jamil Hussein at 11:29AM

Nice to meet you Karla.

This is so G88. Challenging the black preferences is racist, according to G88. AA professors (most who are black) are clearly morons without any scholarly merits and would never have been admitted as white people to any relevant academic department (other than pseudo-science AA/WomenStudies/AngryStudies).

Let's be honest here: Affirmative action is racist. It gives privileges because of your race.

Your reading of Roy Weintraub's letter to the Chronicle is correct. His point is precisely that there is a vast difference in personal risk and suffering for those involved in the events of the McCharthy period -- whether guilty or not -- and for the 88/87 whose claims of persecution are, frankly, ridiculous.

Roy is a man of great integrity and intellectual honesty. If there is a role model for how to be a university intellectual it's him. (He surely taught me a thing or two about that.) He is also a great teacher who cares greatly about students. His letter is directed more to them than to the 88/87.

In his trademark careful, polite language, he makes the point that the 88/87's references to McCharthyism are disingeneous and intellectually dishonest. I cannot imagine what drives them to make such claims. Perhaps they count on the presumption that the current generation of college students are ignorant of the facts and thus easily conned. Roy, in contrast, KNOWS that the majority of our students are interested in facts and can think for themselves. He thus offers facts. Students will then draw their own conclusions.

This is what honest professors who respect their students do.

I understand that the thetrics of the 88/87 attract attention, but please do no equate them to the whole Duke faculty. I think Roy is more representative of the good that at Duke we have to offer to our students. People like him -- and there are many -- are less visible, mostly by choice, but by no means less important.

Bill Anderson has done a valuable public service by piecing together the criminal (conspiracy) coverup by Nifong et al. If we had a U.S. Attorney worth a bucket of warm spit, he'd take that article and use it as a template to bring federal charges against the parties who have brought this travesty to life. A U.S. Attorney with cojones??? Don't kid yourself.

Thanks for the compliments on my article. I'm going to look even harder at the legal angles that this case can take. (I assume the charges will be dropped, but that hardly ends the legal drama. It just turns elsewhere.)

I am adamant in saying that Durham was hit by a crime wave this past year, but the criminal gang consisted of the DA, some of his staff, and the Durham police. This is organized crime, and nothing less.

In his trademark careful, polite language, he makes the point that the 88/87's references to McCarthyism are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. I cannot imagine what drives them to make such claims. ---------I really think many of them simply don't know -- they are not the brightest bulbs, are they! I am dismayed that many of these chaired-professors are simply not learned people.

I've followed this blog long enough to get a sense of the range of political views that get posted here, but please --

McCarthy was right?

He was only right in measuring the level of genuine and justified fear in this country in the hottest days of the Cold War. He was not right in his shameless exploitation of that fear by promoting witchhunts, blacklists, and general hysteria at every opportunity.

The term "McCarthyism" is his rightful legacy.

But if McCarthyism is the exploitation of fear and persecution of the innocent, I do wonder how the G-88 avoids seeing themselves among his heirs.

In his trademark careful, polite language, he makes the point that the 88/87's references to McCarthyism are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. I cannot imagine what drives them to make such claims.

I AM trying to imagine and I wonder how many of these race/gender/class/white-male-privilege scenario professors actually work with undergraduate students outside the classroom and serve on university committees?

Much of what they have done and said suggests to me that they don't understand undergraduate students, have little understanding of how young people learn and understand even less about how things get done in a university environment.

Do you have a cadre of faculty at Duke with special privileges that allow them to say that Duke truly would be a great place to work if it were not for the students?

Has someone or some system at Duke allowed them to work alone and separate from undergraduate students and the university community?

If so, then I can understand what drives them to make such claims.

Intellectual check and balance systems are not there to insure that they baby does not get thrown out with the bath water.

I AM trying to imagine and I wonder how many of these race/gender/class/white-male-privilege scenario professors actually work with undergraduate students outside the classroom and serve on university committees?

After being away from this forum all week, I come back to another fun-filled episode of "Pee Wee's Playhouse"......starring asymmetrical, cone-headed Richard Brodhead in his acclaimed portrayal of Pee Wee.

This kindergarten-esque teach-in---complete with the cutting of a string to illustrate disconnect---is, no doubt, about as deep as Lubiano and company get with this brand of show-and-tell.

As with the characters in "Pee Wee's Playhouse"---names like "Chairy"given to the talking chair....along with other silly baby names.....and trusted Cowboy Curtis, who had nothing on that vessel of red-hot intellect, Mark Anthony Neal (aka) "thugniggaintellectual"---loads of valuable information for any second-grader was available Monday night.

Indeed, the Gang of 88 and the scared and nervous little Pee Wee Brodhead would be a treasure trove of laughs for a new cartoon series.

On a positive note: There was no report of Wahneema mugging anyone with her metaphors that evening. I suppose she had her hands full cutting the string.....a dramatic display, to be sure, of "disconnect".

They are forced to teach them and have a deep seated hatred of them because the students are resisting the indoctrination.

All you have to do is listen to C. Piot talk about how the socially-dominant White Greeks are unknowingly unhappy and that the Campus Culture Initiative will good for them because it will fix all that.

What label could you give the group of 88? What name would you give their tactics of social agitation, control of the masses (students;potbangers),opression of freedom of speech and thought?

Communism as described by Dr. David A. Yeagley:

"Communism is the religion of envy. It says, “I want what you have. If you have a Cadillac, and I don’t, you have denied me, you have wronged me, and you owe me.”

"Communism is the religion of hate. It says, “You have made me suffer. I will therefore violently take from you whatever you have that I want.”

"Communism redefines words. Envy now means justice. “Justice” means I have a right to have what’s yours. “Equality” means I deserve whatever you have. “Democracy” means the state makes sure I have what you have. Laws must prevent distinguished achievement, first in education, then in business."

"Communism wants to destroy the achievements of the white male, and to subjugate him to all that he has had dominion over."

"Communism appears to advocate the best for all, but actually denies the best to all, namely individual freedom, independence, and opportunity to advance. Communism, like its relative, radical Islam, is just another ploy to give a few megalomaniacs power over the masses."

We have listened to the group of 88 talk about their dislike for rich, white, elite lacrosse players.

We have listened to the group of 88 say that even if there was no rape the lacrosse players should suffer for the past.

We have seen the group of 88 deny freedom and advancement to African Americans by continuting their "victimhood" through assigning racism to every wrong in their lives.

We have seen the group of 88 exercise their power over those who would be potbangers, and have watched then not allow free exchange of ideas.

Communism is not equality, communism is opression.If the shoe fits; wear it!

Hey, KC, Bill Anderson, all you guys posting about the potbangers and Gang of 88 rewriting their history - check out Amanda Marcotte's attempt at same in Salon.com.

http://tinyurl.com/26x4fd

Her whitewash is so thick you have to hack through it with a Bowie knife. But anyway, here's the gist.

We are all "30-something nerdy young white men who wear khakis and obsess over crafting their Act Blue lists." (Um, I wear a bra and I don't know what 'Act Blue lists' are - but no matter.) So, when we made our "oddly aggressive and misogynistic comments" about her coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case, she posted it again in "childish, easy-to-understand language". (Ahh, c'mon, Amanda, be original! The Gang already called us stupid for actually reading what they wrote!!)

Oh, and one last thing. Don't any of us dare say Amanda is whitewashing her history. The correct description is "mockingly rewritten".

Oh come on! Don't you know that, to professors at elite universities in our post- modern world, the actual facts are a mere impediment to the struggle against the racism and sexism that pervade Western culture? To point out that their criticisms of the lacrosse players in particular, and the white male power structure in general, have no relation to actual facts is to miss the important point. The risk that their ideas might be miscontrued by those who hear exactly what they say is an unacceptable one in this battle to overcome racism, sexism and capitalism. That is exactly how these people think.

Even in today's Salon article, Marcotte is still talking about "the Duke lacrosse rape case." Even if the rape charges hadn't been dropped, she would have been better off saying "alleged," I'd think. Lawyers out there -- can she be sued for this obdurate jackassery?

Have you considered a career in the expanding field of reverse racism? There are ground floor opportunities available right now in our Hoax Department to any motivated hater intrested in a pot-banger/flunky position.

Applicant Qualifications: Each interested applicant must exhibit abiding hate, no tolerance for criticism, the inability to write a comprehensible sentence and a current teacher's certificate.

Official Job Title: Duke University Associate Professor.

Job Benefits: The ability to take Duke University down while at the same time getting paid BY THE UNIVERSITY! Never having to say you're sorry. Healthcare.

Salary: Up to $135,000.00 depending on qualifications. Additionally, some of the Associate Professors in the Humanities Department earn as much as $7.00 per year from publishing residuals.

another interesting article from NPR on how childrens' view of their own intelligenc and its potential to improve affects their learning. What do you think about this, RP?

If anything that over a hundred years investigation of intelligence has taught us is that the intelligence of any individual is essentially fixed (barring changes that can improve the energy metabolism of neural cells).

However, different people are more or less susceptible to roadblocks, and self doubt can be a big roadblock for some people, and less so for others.

Any approach that can help people achieve their true potential is worthwhile exploring. However, to imply that the offspring of drug- and alcohol-addicted prostitutes can routinely become Einsteins demonstrates a lack of intelligence.

:"What the right-wingers had really discovered was a very different, embarrassing secret. With all our server and software changes over the years, we at Pandagon had hopelessly scrambled and in fact deleted months and even years of the blog by accident. Some blog posts had funky URLs; others had the wrong author. We'd never fixed the problem because no one could figure out a way to do it that didn't involve thousands of manual corrections."

This is the full article (link above) about children, intelligence, and how their views of it affect their grades. I missed the part about turning prostitutes children into Einsteins before. And still cannot find it. But this article does say something about the potential damage a full embrace of "The Bell Curve" could do.

Morning Edition, February 15, 2007 · A new study in the scientific journal Child Development shows that if you teach students that their intelligence can grow and increase, they do better in school.

All children develop a belief about their own intelligence, according to research psychologist Carol Dweck from Stanford University.

"Some students start thinking of their intelligence as something fixed, as carved in stone," Dweck says. "They worry about, 'Do I have enough? Don't I have enough?'"

Dweck calls this a "fixed mindset" of intelligence.

"Other children think intelligence is something you can develop your whole life," she says. "You can learn. You can stretch. You can keep mastering new things."

She calls this a "growth mindset" of intelligence.

Dweck wondered whether a child's belief about intelligence has anything to do with academic success. So, first, she looked at several hundred students going into seventh grade, and assessed which students believed their intelligence was unchangeable, and which children believed their intelligence could grow. Then she looked at their math grades over the next two years.

"We saw among those with the growth mindset steadily increasing math grades over the two years," she says. But that wasn't the case for those with the so-called "fixed mindset." They showed a decrease in their math grades.

This led Dweck and her colleague, Lisa Blackwell, from Columbia University to ask another question.

"If we gave students a growth mindset, if we taught them how to think about their intelligence, would that benefit their grades?" Dweck wondered.

So, about 100 seventh graders, all doing poorly in math, were randomly assigned to workshops on good study skills. One workshop gave lessons on how to study well. The other taught about the expanding nature of intelligence and the brain.

The students in the latter group "learned that the brain actually forms new connections every time you learn something new, and that over time, this makes you smarter."

Basically, the students were given a mini-neuroscience course on how the brain works. By the end of the semester, the group of kids who had been taught that the brain can grow smarter, had significantly better math grades than the other group.

"When they studied, they thought about those neurons forming new connections," Dweck says. "When they worked hard in school, they actually visualized how their brain was growing."

Dweck says this new mindset changed the kids' attitude toward learning and their willingness to put forth effort. Duke University psychologist, Steven Asher, agrees. Teaching children that they're in charge of their own intellectual growth motivates a child to work hard, he says.

"If you think about a child who's coping with an especially challenging task, I don't think there's anything better in the world than that child hearing from a parent or from a teacher the words, 'You'll get there.' And that, I think, is the spirit of what this is about."

Dweck's latest book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, gives parents and teachers specific ways to teach the growth mindset of intelligence to children.

What the right-wingers had really discovered was a very different, embarrassing secret. With all our server and software changes over the years, we at Pandagon had hopelessly scrambled and in fact deleted months and even years of the blog by accident. Some blog posts had funky URLs; others had the wrong author. We'd never fixed the problem because no one could figure out a way to do it that didn't involve thousands of manual corrections.

Translation: Sure, we're stupid, but if you criticize us you're evil misogynists.

I missed the part about turning prostitutes children into Einsteins before. And still cannot find it. But this article does say something about the potential damage a full embrace of "The Bell Curve" could do.

Well, it did not say that. The comment was directed at misguided policy initiatives that assume all people are equal and could become Einsteins if we only gave them a little push.

"If you think about a child who's coping with an especially challenging task, I don't think there's anything better in the world than that child hearing from a parent or from a teacher the words, 'You'll get there.' And that, I think, is the spirit of what this is about."

No amount of encouragement will take a child with an IQ of 100 to mastery of calculus. Nor will it take that child and turn them into a software engineer who can understand and deal with software that runs on several different operating system and communicates between multiple machines. Nor will it turn them into a person who has a deep understanding of hedge funds or international money markets or such.

Those skills require IQs above about 130 and produce large returns in the form of salary and stock holdings and such.

Parents and society need to get real and deal with the real potential of their children.

My last word about the Marcotte thing: I don't care that she tries to paint herself as the victim of right-wing fanatics, nor do I care what she said about Christianity and Catholicism. I might agree with her, or disagree and find it offensive, but...free speech and all that. What should have (and maybe rightfully did) kick her butt out of the Edwards campaign was the lie about calling the Duke 3 rapists, and then rushing back to cover it up. She had to learn one can't make such false statements, publicly, without taking the consequences.

As I recall from my days when I followed the research on Lewis Terman's "genius" kids, intelligence researchers found, to their surprise, folks with IQs of under 130 winning Nobel Prizes in the "hard" sciences. The researchers had expected that level of accomplishment only from the most intellectually capable. Which leads to my problem with Charles Murray and "realistic expectations" for the intellectually less gifted...Educators, like doctors, really should be bound by the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm." And the potential for harm is very great when sorting children based on IQ numbers. Besides natural interests seem to follow capabilities fairly well anyway, no?

Observer, 1 of the more amusing things I've done is tutor murderers and drug dealers after they get out of prison, in a Manhattan rehab. The really scary ones are the murderers who murdered drug dealers. These people are not stupid, and I was able to teach most of them sentence structure and math--but what they should have been learning is money trades--plumbing, electrician, carpentry

As to the esteem issue with children: I'm no expert on this, but it makes sense to me to both encourage students and criticize them in a positive way. Eg, a student writes: "I had went to the store." Instead of cakking the kid an idiot, it makes sense to me to point out that that would make good dialogue for a character in a movie, but as far as standard English is concerned, it's best to learn the past perfect, etc

Not all children should be groomed for college. There's a lot of money to be made in the trades, and these kids should be given a shot.

O, where is your daughter going to college?

11:29 writes that "Asians are the best performing group"--not so fast, it's more complicated than you think. I presume you're referring to Southeast Asians. The definitive article on this issue is at lagriffedulion.com--check out the article titled "Why Asians Lag." Author argues that verbal intelligence is more important than mathematical. Read it, and get back to me.

12:00 the term "affirmative action" was either coined by LBJ or his speechwriter

TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CALLED POLANSKI A RACIST--re 1:52 and 2:28

re 1:52 I criticized overrated blacks like Spike Lee and Cornel West who were initially characterized by MSM as geniuses. Now MSM sees them for the mediocrities that they are. That makes me a racist? I also criticized the black sinecures enjoyed by untalented racists like Lubiano and Holloway. Is that racist?

re 2:28--I pointed out that it's important to tell the truth about racial differences; otherwise, the diversity pimps want a proportional number of recipients for the world's most cognitively demanding prize--the Gauss

re demise of black studies: I also pointed out that, coparatively speaking, there is no great art or science that has its origins in sub-Saharan Africa. I also noted, based on history and genetics, that it is unlikely that Africans will play an important role in the development of new technology, scientific principles, etc Is that racist? Or do you prefer that I tell you that I think Toni Morrison is brilliant, Cornel West God's answer to Plato

Listen, bud, I'm an equal opportunity critical bastard, and for the record I think Faulkner is overrated, Tolstoy's "Resurrection" a piece of shit, "Finnegans Wake" pretentious, and George Gershwin terribly overrated.

Attack my arguments. I work hard, enjoy visiting this site, but I cannot offer a response to the "racism" accusation because I know not what it means.

You'd be better off explaining yourself. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for 54 years of critical thinking.

If you want to read about the relationship between IQ and one's chance of being successful in the trades and in the professions, Google "Linda Gottfredson." She teaches at the University of Delaware, and she has received funding from the Pioneer fund. Her ex-husband, Robert Gordon, is also someone whose research you should study. Believe he teaches at Johns Hopkins.

I think the concept of g is more important than IQ. Visit the Mensa site and take a test. I couldn't do it because I found most of the questions really stupid. Therefore, it's no surprise that some of society's biggest losers are in Mensa.

Agreed for the most part, KC, but "vile racism" was once running rampant among the comments here. I think the community -- and I'm thinking of Bill Anderson in particular -- has helped to make it more positive.

I can see how someone would've read some of the NCCU-taunting, race-baiting comments in these parts a couple of months ago and think, "Holy cow! I'm steering clear of these people."

The idealist in me would love to see someone bridge the gap and explain that there should be reasonable discussion here. The skeptic in me thinks Neal and Lubiano are rather attached to their victim status and wouldn't let that happen.

5:58(a)--I know Gottfredson, and you are absolutely correct. I don't know much about the meaning of IQ, but I can spot a mediocrity at a thousand paces.

5:58(b)--my biggest fan: just so happens all my students were either black or Hispanic, and they all loved me because I judge people as individuals--my general comments about group differences are just thay--comments

BTW, I think Holloway, et al, should be invited by Johnson to participate in this forum. I'm not so arrogant as not to wonder what's really on their minds.

And for the record: I think blacks have made major contributions in dance, popular music, and comedy--3 things I have enormous respect for.

And just for the record, bud, I give a lot of work to blacks, and I'm glad to do it because they excel in the disciplines I use them for. That's respect!

"re 1:52 I criticized overrated blacks like Spike Lee and Cornel West who were initially characterized by MSM as geniuses. Now MSM sees them for the mediocrities that they are. That makes me a racist? I also criticized the black sinecures enjoyed by untalented racists like Lubiano and Holloway. Is that racist?

re 2:28--I pointed out that it's important to tell the truth about racial differences; otherwise, the diversity pimps want a proportional number of recipients for the world's most cognitively demanding prize--the Gauss

re demise of black studies: I also pointed out that, coparatively speaking, there is no great art or science that has its origins in sub-Saharan Africa. I also noted, based on history and genetics, that it is unlikely that Africans will play an important role in the development of new technology, scientific principles, etc Is that racist? Or do you prefer that I tell you that I think Toni Morrison is brilliant, Cornel West God's answer to Plato

Listen, bud, I'm an equal opportunity critical bastard, and for the record I think Faulkner is overrated,think Tolstoy's "Resurrection" a piece of shit, "Finnegans Wake" pretentious, and George Gershwin terribly overrated."

Geez Polanski, now I'm thinking you might be right about Gershwin. I've like him until now.

I'm always amazed that the academy bows at the feet of an imposter like Cornell West.

The G88 claim McCarthyism is harming them in some unspecified ways. But, a more apt suggestion of how to approach the rest of the literate world's misunderstaing of G88's original Ad is to look to Chicago's Richard J. Daley, who famously stated, "Quote what I mean, not what I say." If the G88 just stessed his comment, we could all be on the same page. I guess.gk

The lacrosse case has nothing to do with commies. I don't see why Karla Holloway doesn't fly me down to Durham on her dime, and we both can ridicule KC's bowtie. I don't hate any of these doofuses. I just want them fired, and sued. It's business as usual. Actually, I think Holloway is kind of cute. I wouldn't mind taking her for a ride--after she's unemployed--LOL

Strategy and humor go hand in hand in my book.

Gordon Parks's son David is a friend of mine, and I knew Gordon pretty well. He cracked me up, and he was a damn good writer, but a terrible photographer. I told him this, in a respectful way, and it didn't piss him off at all because he had a huge ego.

In sum, I'd like to see members of the G88 start posting here. I'd have the chance to resurrect my Barack Obama character, or perhaps The Hershey Warrior--LOL

Professor, Once again you hit the nail on the head and expose the G88 for what they are. Is their philosophy "I think, therefore I am (right)." What a bunch of non-objective fools and what a tarnishment on Duke's reputation.

Thank you for asking...darling daughter could not make an Early Decision decision. So, the regular applications are all in, and we are waiting. I thought Yale on $0 per day a la WSJ yesterday sounded pretty good, though. I am reading Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" right now. At least one of the murderers Dick Hickock (and probably both) was very intelligent--IQ of 130, as measured in the prison. He worked as an auto mechanic after his release from prison and was excellent at his job. Somehow, neither his intelligence nor his auto mechanic skills kept him from making terrible decisions that destroyed numerous people and led him to the gallows. I am sure Mr. Capote will enlighten me soon as to why. Of course, I completely disagree with you about Morrison, Faulkner, Tolstoy (although I have not read "Resurrection"), and probably Joyce. Just for the record.

off topic The judge in Florida overseeing the Anna Nicole case is a riot. Central casting could not have provided a better judge for this case, The important thing is he says frequently "There are no secrets here - what I know, you know." How refreshing. when Titus and Stephens let the cameras in the courtroom, they were not flattering to these two, Oz keeps them out - I guess he might have know of some secrets. Thanks to our diligent bloggers - secrets are exposed.Let the sun shine,,,

Mr. Polanski:My reference was to the G88's invocation of the term McCarthyism in their rehab tour meeting. It should be no surprise that the G88 would use this tactic as it is quite standard for liberals/leftists/progressives to tar their critics (ad hominem), and thereby avoid engaging in substantive intellectual debate.

I would quickly like to exempt the erudite "anti-leftist liberal" from my generalization as his writing exhibits classic liberalism. He must be lonely, though, without many political allies on the left.gk

Has the Group of 88/87 released any public statement, either collectively or individually, concerning larger societal issue at a time coincidently near the 2/10/07 (alleged) rape of a Duke student by (allegedly) an African-American gentleman?

It's interesting how the right wing here does three things. First, they reject the comparison with McCarthyism because the G88 are not oppressed like McCarthy's victims were. Second, they say that McCarthy was right, and thus there were no victims of McCarthy. Finally, they say that McCarthyism is irrelevant because the G88 are not Marxists, despite the fact that mental midgets like bill anderson say they are. Fascinating intellectual discourse you have there.

Yale's a great school, but New Haven is a cesspool. BTW, Yale has an awesome English department; think Harold Bloom is still there. He's a nut, but a great teacher--and brilliant. My former teacher at Brooklyn Prep, John Sexton, is now president of NYU--and its rep is soaring. John is smart as hell, and he has good taste. Avoid Duke and Vanderbilt--too dangerous right now. If she's smart enough for Yale, is it too late to apply to Stanford? Dartmouth? Berkeley? You know, Columbia has a bad political rap, but I think it's 1 of the jewels of the Ivy League. She apply to Emory?

No point, i'm just fascinated. Like i'm fascinated by the fact that folks here can defend somebody who argues that people who are descended from Africans can never make contributions to civilization (nah, he's not a racist; he's just not politically correct).

I could be wrong. I remember Joe McCarthy very well and watching him on black and white TV. He like the 88 was shrill, talked over everyone and the master of the inneundo. Frequently, his facts were incorrect and many people were afraid of him. He had the capacity to destroy lives, even if it was a lie. I think we have seen the same thing here o particularly with Houston Baker's contributions.

I am reading Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" right now. At least one of the murderers Dick Hickock (and probably both) was very intelligent--IQ of 130, as measured in the prison. He worked as an auto mechanic after his release from prison and was excellent at his job. Somehow, neither his intelligence nor his auto mechanic skills kept him from making terrible decisions that destroyed numerous people and led him to the gallows.

Mr Observer, you do know the difference between a counterexample and an outlier, I hope?

Secondly, psychopathology is most likely independent of intelligence. Indeed, small amounts of tweeking of the production of testosterone in the late teens in males is likely to explain the difference in average time preference between the three broard racial groups ...

One might think it strange that there is more focus on the G88 than on the accuser. Perhaps it is attributable to something visceral – something that we all know but have not quite yet realized. If CGM is the liar, then the G88 is the lie. The culture, the belief system, from which this great lie emanates came into ascendancy more than 50 years ago.

Has our society improved in the past five decades? I graduated from high school in 1962. There were no guns in our schools, no metal detectors. We didn’t need to don Kevlar vests to go to the mall. When I went to high school, most black people were generally smarter than white people. Blacks had not bought into the “Big Bang” or the evolution of man from primordial soup. In those days, blacks still had their spiritual intelligence.

CGM is a mold in the Petri dishes of the great experiment of secular humanism. It is today completely acceptable for CGM to lie in order to extract payment from the three white elitist lacrosse players. After all, isn’t she a victim of racism and misogyny? There is nothing wrong with screwing five men in less than one week to make a living. Performing with a vibrator in front of a couple is now called exotic dance. CGM is just using the assets with which nature endowed her.

The liberal secular humanists (i.e. the G88) have fully embraced a Newtonian model of the world. They have asked us to have faith in their institutions. We, humanity, can build a utopia of social equality if we only put our faith in them – if only we elevate them to the status of philosopher kings and queens to which they are so entitled.

The irony is that the real scientists, the physicists, cosmologists, biologists, etc., no longer believe that this universe came about by accident or that human DNA developed from primordial amino acids. I have seen it estimated that the probability of a universe supporting carbon-based life having spontaneously sprung into existence is 1 over 10 to the 123rd. and that the probability of DNA self-creating from the confluence of accidental events is about 1 over 10 to the 65th. In other words, these things did not just happen by accident.

Obviously, I am not familiar with the belief systems of the G88 professors. I do not know if they believe is a creator. However, I know that what they did was wrong. I know that all they have done since is attempt to justify their initial mistakes. And, I know that they do not have the MORAL COURAGE to apologize to the Duke three. I infer from their actions that they have no knowledge of their purpose for existence.

I have lived on this planet for over 60 years. I have witnessed the rise of liberalism and secular humanism and the decline of our societal values. I have watched as our families disintegrated. I have seen us espouse Freud, Dr. Spock and prozac. For this I hold the Group of 88 and their ilk greatly responsible and for this I hold them in great distain.

Mike I disagree that this is the 88 and like ilks fault. I have been here 70 years and live in Las Vegas. I think we are seeing evalution-this will work its way out. left left wing liberalism has been exposed as has the sense of entitelment. This can only be good.

There is nothing wrong with screwing five men in less than one week to make a living. Performing with a vibrator in front of a couple is now called exotic dance. CGM is just using the assets with which nature endowed her.

Well, titillating people for pay is OK. Where the line gets drawn is when your behavior causes other people much real pain.

I've followed this blog long enough to get a sense of the range of political views that get posted here, but please --

McCarthy was right?

He was only right in measuring the level of genuine and justified fear in this country in the hottest days of the Cold War. He was not right in his shameless exploitation of that fear by promoting witchhunts, blacklists, and general hysteria at every opportunity.

The term "McCarthyism" is his rightful legacy.

Dave

2:41 PM

No, what you are suckered into is denial that a communist menace existed because the messenger was odious. In other words, the "silliness" about communists loyal to Soviet leadership of world communism is disproven because of the excesses of one investigator. Part of the problem is the heavy involvement of Jewish American intelligensia and toney WASP families of wealth but into radicalism - in the transnationaism and COMINTERN movement. Which led them right into the hands of Soviet controllers. Who did real damage with transfer of military secrets to Stalin, pro-Soviet propaganda in the media, and spy rings that disclosed extensive intelligence from America's innermost policy circles. With at one time half of the Communist Party leadership in America being Jewish. Many of these had children that feared Jewish persecution and who --on rising to positions of prominence in politics, media, and law ---worked furiously to discredit charges on parents and friends. We know that generation as the "Trotsky kids" or "Red Diaper Babies"...active as neocons, active as prominent apoliticals heading Fronts and NGOs, or as hard Left as their parents and grandparents were. Superb organizers and scholars in "the family tradition".The toney WASPs who became Soviet dilettants in that era's version of being progressive or cutting edge were scions of some of America's most noted families, or familiar to those families - of the then - powerful Eastern Establishment. They too reacted powerfully to "crude peasants" like McCarthy besieging chums like Alger Hiss and Owen Lattimore who had gone to the best private schools, had relatives known to them in elite banking circles, and even attended the same dinner parties in Manhattan or the Vineyard in the summer! They too never forgave the declasse` likes of Nixon, backwoods Southern Democrats, or those that lacked the restraint as gentlemen to demurr from "naming names".

The problem for those that say it was all a lie, all witch hunt hysteria, is that the menace was proven to be real. The American commies either willfully ignored the tens of millions murdered in the Soviet Union, E Europe, China...or didn't care on Stalins omlette principle that breaking eggs was needed for the greater good.Not just the Verona cables, but many Soviet agents later came clean to historians, and when the Soviet Union fell, another trove of intelligence on Soviet efforts in America 1918-1954 was made available to Americans by ex-KGB agents opening files for a little money. Several KGB agents moved to the West and went on the rubber chicken circuit telling all...on just how deep Soviet infiltration of Hollywood, State Dept, the print media, academia, civil rights movement actually was....and how close the Soviets had come to calling the shots in key sectors in America.

Those who blindly use "McCarthyism!!" as a negative oath generally would well benefit from reading the history and reality of the times.****************************Similarly, those that maintain a simplistic view of progressive movements as universally evil and against the best interests of humanity that the kindly Patron, banker, CEO, factory owner wishes to advance - need their own reality check.

(Yeagley is an oddball Native American piano player, professor, and conservative who emerged as the anti-Ward Churchill)

Like all major, lasting intellectual movements, communism has great intellectual allure to those living in injustice and lacking reasonable social progress and sharing of the fruits of a common economy. It, or it's milder socialist version flourishes when other systems fail to deliver. Right now, we are seeing a global resurgence of Socialist or communist systems due to the success of China and the failure of free trade, globalization, and American-style crony capitalism to deliver other than by concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and relying on trickledown to the masses.

It's not all black and white. It was the communists in America that stepped up and organized the civil rights movement when every other sector in America shunned them. Latin America went Left in the last 10 years because American conservative solutions didn't measure up. China is becoming the model 3rd world nations are looking to - free economy, redistribution of a fair portion of wealth created rather than count on trickledown, firm State control of social sectors. It's not about ideology as much as what rival system - radical Islam, Euro welfare state model, laissez faire CEO capitalism, China model, Chavezism - best appeals the the leaders and the masses they rule...****************************

Like with the Civil Rights movement, I am struck by the frozen language, symbols of the Hard Left. McCarthyism! Remember Sacco and Vanzetti! The persecuted Rosenbergs! Franco sucks! Pinochet is a demon! American running dog imperialism...Formed in an earlier era, and never updated for modern times.

Similarly, those that maintain a simplistic view of progressive movements as universally evil and against the best interests of humanity that the kindly Patron, banker, CEO, factory owner wishes to advance - need their own reality check.

Indeed, people are wont to deny the humanity of those they perceive as responsible for their ills.

Painful? Nope, Don't thik so. They make more money than you. They are tenured. They are reinforced every day by the institution who has taken on the departments you all hate as their targets for infusions of mega bucks... and your worst nightmare, holler as you will, they're not going anywhere at all, uncless for even (gasp!)highter salaries. Like the kids say, that's all right, that's okay, you will wish you were working for us some day.And your estimates of salaries on these blogs are way low. Try average 250k. Eat your heart out folks, or, better yet, spend your days reading and posting here. It's good practice at the reading skills you need to refine.

And somebody here hire a real lawyer. Y'all definitely need some real advice.There's not an actionable claim in the bunch against the 88 for social disaster or other versions of "academic freedom"--matter of fact, courts are extraordinarily deferential to academic freedom. Ask a real lawyer when you come out behind your blog hideouts. But and ironically, plenty of slander and libel on these posts. Who is coming after for whom? Watch out for the blue folders...and watch your wallets.

10:16I think over the next few years that you and we will see that "academic freedom" applies within the university setting to protect teachers against unjust discharge. Slander and Libel, by contrast, apply within the judicial system to protect against defamation, such as, by accusing an innocent man of a serious crime.gk

Ah yes, the 88 crawl from beneath their rocks to regale us with another flash of brilliance, another glimpse into their world where ignorance is valued and screaming"I'm a victim! "I'm a victim!" earns you a paycheck.

Guess what? Find a lawyer quickly for 'Neema and thugniggaintellectual, as well as for Holloway and the rest who claim to be scholars. We're coming for you all right, with all the righteous anger of those who expose racists fools for what they are-- predators on the young.

As the 88 continue to spew forth their venom, slowly but surely the worm is turning. Make sure they save some of that 250k, they're gonna need it, or is 'Neema finally going to publish a book?

RP, I think she has the "g" but not the gpa for Yale...In my previous comment I was referring to the new practice at some universities, Yale in particular according to yesterday's WSJ, of making courses available for free via internet. Very democratic and economical. That's my backup plan anyway. Not clear how to handle the degree issue. I wonder if you can still go to grad school without an undergrad degree. Hmmm. Yes, I am kidding, but... Darling daughter will be visiting her friends at Yale, not likely attending. More bad news. She nixed Emory. Her beloved godmother (a Duke grad) attended law school there and did not like the place. We could not overcome that...but you will be relieved to know that Duke is not on the list of possibilities. She really likes Vanderbilt, along with several other places.

To Anon who was wondering if I know the difference between an "outlier" and a "counterexample." I have never taken a Statistics class (bad advising), so no, not really. But I would consider Dick Hickock a mild, but not extreme, outlier in the prison population, and a counterexample to the statement, "All prisoners are dumb." That is what I could gather from a very quick peek at Wiki...feel free to correct me.

Finally, Linda Gottfredson is very interesting. She cites James J. Heckman, a Nobel Laureate in the Economic Sciences, and I will link to him below. The first link is his review of "The Bell Curve" in 1995 and the second is to an article he wrote in 2003 after following up with research on some of the criticism/thinking he expressed in the review.

The people who post on this web log are expressing opinions protected by the First Amendment. This is what the First Amendment is for.

Now, if the people who post here suddenly started posting pictures of named individuals with the term “rapist” under their faces, and / or marching and encouraging banner carriers who advocate “castrating” named individuals, then they would run afoul of the Constitution.

The G88, pot bangers, and members of the Durham DA can’t seem to understand that the right to free speech is not the right to slander or advocate violence. But they’re going to learn, soon enough.

Time to shut up and lawyer up, G88. Seriously. “Tenure” with protect you in the hallowed halls of academia. It ain’t gonna do jack shit in the real world…

Many people in America feel basketball proves the athletic superiority of “blacks.” Yet the US has gotten her collective basketball ass kicked in international competition the last several years, often by “white” teams. Seems when you apply rules that don’t favor the NBA, the “racial” playing field suddenly levels out.

Isn’t it ironic that athletics is the most obvious debunker of racial stereotypes, if you just take the time to look. Ask Jesse Owens. And yet, the G88 turned to an athletic team to pander to the basest instincts of hatred.

I think you mentioned she had a U. Chicago app in. If not, it is a pretty good place.

Intellectual rigor held in high esteem. Angry Studies has not taken over. Language dept is pretty good. Sciences very good. Post grad excellent.

#2 son graduates from there this spring. He is a Russian Lit major. He has a job lined up at a consulting firm that has given him a signing bonus. BTW he was excellent in science and math in high school. He is taking some extra courses this spirng for job preparation.

Nixon cranked up drug prohibition to attack his political enemies, or so he told Haldeman during a tape recorded session. Not in keeping with the highest American traditions of meeting your political opponents in the realm of ideas.

Eisenhower never trusted him. For good reason. A lose cannon with no moral compass.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review